2025:MHC:1494 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS ORDERS RESERVED ON: 23.06.2025 ORDERS PRONOUNCED ON: 30.06.025 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY Criminal Revision Case No.776 of 2016 Dr.P.Murugesa Boopathi ... Petitioner/Accused No.1 Vs.

The State Rep.by the Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Tirupur – 03. ... Respondent/Complainant Prayer: Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., against the final order dated 22.04.2016 made in the petition filed by the petitioner for his discharge under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C.,filed in Crl.M.P.No.186 of 2014 in Special Calender Case No.18 of 2013 on the file of the Special Court at Coimbatore.

For the Petitioner : Mr.M.Udhayakumar For the Respondent : Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order dated 22.04.2016 made in Crl.M.P.No.186 of 2014 in Special Calendar Case No.18 of 2013 on the file of the Special Court for Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Coimbatore. By that order, the application filed by the petitioner herein to discharge him from the case was dismissed.

2. The brief factual background in which the case arises is that the petitioner was the former Vice Chancellor of Tamilnadu Agricultural University (TNAU), Coimbatore, during the period between 04.06.2009 to 03.06.2012. Whileso, a case was registered in Crime No.2/2012/AC/CB on 08.05.2012 for the alleged offences under Sections 120B, 420 IPC, and 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. The gist of the allegations is that, while for the purposes of the TNAU, a whole cane harvester cum de-trasher, billet/cut shop sugar cane harvester, tractor for loader, low bed trailer, etc., was sought to be purchased, despite proper technical experts' advice and recognized inefficiencies, the petitioner herein, being the Vice Chancellor, overruled them, conspired with the other accused in the case, who are the suppliers of the said equipments/vehicles, and placed orders for a price of Rs.1,41,00,000/- each instead of purchasing it for Rs.71 Lakhs, thereby causing wrongful loss to the Government and undue pecuniary advantage to themselves.

4. After investigation, the final report was filed and taken on file as Spl.C.C.No.18 of 2013. The petitioner, as the Vice Chancellor of the University, and K.R. Anantha Sainam @ LCT Babu, Managing Director of ELSEETEE Agro Machines India Private Ltd, Coimbatore, were named as accused. According to the prosecution, the petitioner/1 accused committed offences st punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 of IPC read with 120-B IPC and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The 2 accused nd also committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 of IPC read with 120-B and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and derived wrongful pecuniary gain of Rs.2,77,88,250/- from the supply of five whole cane harvesters, causing loss to the exchequer.

5. Under the circumstances, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.186 of 2014 under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. to discharge him from the case. By an order dated 22.04.2016, the petition was dismissed, holding that there was enough material to proceed against the accused and that, at the stage of framing charges, the pros and cons of the prosecution case cannot be examined in detail. Aggrieved by this, the present Criminal Revision Case was filed. By an order dated

25.07.2017, the revision was allowed.

6. The respondent then approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide Criminal Appeal No.1536 of 2025(SLP (Criminal) No.4155 of 2018 ), and the appeal was allowed. It was stated that this Court's approach in conducting a mini trial and making findings was unnecessary when deciding the application for discharge. Issues related to the merits of the case, based on the evidence, were left open for the defense to argue during the trial. However, the Hon'ble Su